Coming this summer: Mud-slinging judges' races

I wrote about the unprecedented wave of contested elections against sitting Broward judges in today's print column, a piece that was headlined, "Open season in Broward judicial races could be good, bad and ugly."

But until this morning, I had no idea how ugly.

Among the things I learned at a breakfast discussion about our local court scene this morning: Outside mud-slinging campaign groups -- the dreaded 527s and Electioneering Communications Organizations that aren't subject to money limits or candidate rules -- apparently can buy ads and influence judicial races.

That means the normal rules of decorum which apply in judicial races -- where candidates can't talk about their opponents, only themselves -- will be effectively out the window.

Walter "Skip" Campbell, the former state senator and a local trial attorney, said he doesn't think 527s or ECOs are prohibited from launching attack ads against specific candidates in judicial races.

So that means we could have shadowy third-party groups launching grenades from the fringes to take out certain judges -- good and bad -- for reasons that are never quite clear to the public.

That's what we've seen in other local races in recent years, including some high-priced smear jobs in the 2008 Sheriff's race.

Only it won't be the candidates themselves tossing the mud, just outsiders and special interest groups who might or might not be associated with them.

And in the past, thanks to the vagaries of election finance law, we sometimes didn't learn who was financing these attacks until after the election passed.

It's going to make a confusing situation even more confusing.

But as appeals court judge Melanie May pointed out at this morning's discussion at the Tower Forum, every system has its drawbacks.

If there was strictly an appointment system for judges, with no elections or voter oversight, then some people might not ever get the chance to become judge because of the political nature of the governor-controlled nominating and appointment committees.

But this election free-for-all might also claim some undeserving victims, as voters make decisions based on names and perceived ethnicity, not qualifications and temperament.

And most voters have no idea which sitting judges are doing a good job or not, a highly subjective matter that not even courthouse regulars and attorneys can agree upon.

The whole thing can be chaotic.

But this is democracy, the best chaos invented yet.

If you're one of those "supervoters" who turns out for every election, brace yourself for an onslaught of campaign fliers in your mailbox.

And good luck to us all figuring out the truth.

I'll try to do my part, in print and on this blog.

Feel free to offer your thoughts about the way we pick, retain and decide judges.